And we begin with developing news tonight about a stunt in the U.S. House of Representatives that could have very real consequences. Tonight, the House did vote to form a select committee, devoted to investigating the September 2012 attack in Benghazi. The measure passed almost entirely along party lines, 232-186. The House is now authorized to assemble a 12-member panel, seven Republicans, five Democrats.

But when it comes to the power to potentially compel documents and testimony from people, including White House staff, this is basically a committee of one, only the chairman, Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy, has the power to issue subpoenas. Democrats say that is another sign the party is one sided, partisan and illegitimate.

The Republican who authored the resolution to create the select committee, well, he says Republicans should gear up for a battle with an uncooperative Obama White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R), TEXAS: This administration earned exactly the title that has been placed on them today. Uncooperative. And I will tell you that the American people, through this process, will find out who is after truth and who is exactly for hiding the truth, because I believe that it`s not just mismanagement at the top, but bad decisions that they should and will be embarrassed to have uncovered by the select committee on Benghazi.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: We`ll talk about bad decisions tonight. If House Republicans wanted this vote to focus scrutiny on the response to murders in Benghazi -- so far, let`s be clear, they`re failing. That`s because as most major news organizations have already reported this week. Republicans didn`t even wait until the committee was formed to begin directly using the inquiry for fund-raising.

Now, some Republicans, including Chairman Gowdy, say this fund-raising off the Benghazi murders or the investigation of those murders must stop. OK.

But, GOP leadership won`t go that far. Majority Leader Cantor dodged the question yesterday, as we reported. And today, Speaker Boehner couldn`t bring himself to say this is wrong. Despite repeated questions on that point from reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUKE RUSSERT, NBC NEWS: Speaker Boehner, four Americans died, should the NRCC fundraise off your efforts with the select committee?

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Our focus is on giving the answers to those families who lost their loved ones, period.

RUSSERT: But should the NRCC, their fundraising off of it right now, is that the right thing to do?

BOEHNER: Our focus is getting the truth for these four families and to the American people.

JAKE SHERMAN, POLITICO: But the campaign committee which you are very involved in is fundraising off of this. Why is that happening?

BOEHNER: Our focus is on getting the truth for the American people and these four families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: It`s almost eerie when you see the politician in that sort of full talking point mode, especially if it`s about an investigation of murders of Americans.

Now, before the vote tonight, the oversight committee`s ranking Democrat underscored his party`s stance on all that fund-raising.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: They had been using the deaths of these fo1/4 Americans for political campaign fundraising. I call on the speaker of the House to end that process right now. We are better than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Joining me now is Nicholas Kristof, columnist for "The New York Times", and Steve Clemons, Washington editor at large for "Atlantic Magazine" and MSNBC contributor.

Welcome to you both.

Nick, what are we learning about this inquiry and this vote today?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, we are going to learn very little about Benghazi, that`s been aired pretty thoroughly. But, boy, frankly both parties have -- yes, they spin. They -- they do what they can to fundraise. But it really has become kind of pathetic when at this point the Republican Party, the domestic policy is to have new votes on repealing the Affordable Care Act, and its foreign policy as it but continuing the investigation of, Benghazi when there are -- I mean, they`re genuine problems in the Obama foreign policy that deserve highlighting and investigation. But Benghazi is not one of them.

MELBER: Uh-huh.

Steve, your thoughts here as we are reporting again this vote today from the House, creating the special select committee to investigate Benghazi.

STEVE CLEMONS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I have to say, I know a lot of reasonable Republicans in the House of Representatives, and I am disappointed in them today because they voted en masse. Not a single defection that we`ve seen in the 225 Republicans that voted in favor of really a meaningless committee.

I think that the Republicans had been missing something along the lines of a birther controversy that they pretended to have with President Obama and have now -- created another -- kind of controversy, which is a fake one. But it`s going to be distracting for the nation, going to be polarizing.

To some degree, I am very pleased to see the attention on the fund-raising dimensions. This really could backfire in a boomerang way on the Republican Party for the recklessness of the act. When people look at the callousness of how deep the desire is within the Republican Party to put this at the forefront of their fund-raising. They`re not going to listen to Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the select committee on Benghazi. They`re going to try and raise every bit of money they can and use it as an animating force in the party.

MELBER: Yes. And, Steve, I think you are putting a point on the real contrast here with the chairman. So, he has the subpoena power. So, he is in charge of the serious inquiry. So he has some sort of faith from the leadership. And that`s brand new from Speaker Boehner down.

And yet, he doesn`t have the juice or the authority in the party to tell them to knock off the fund-raising even on the very week they`re supposed to start this thing.

CLEMONS: It is absolutely right. And I think when he begin to proceed with detail by detail by detail, in terms of what he thinks he might be able to get, I agree with Nick Kristof, there is not much more there, that that will be boring. What will really matter is whether or not they can go get $100 donors to become Benghazi watchers and begin ling up the new eagles for the Republican -- Republican Party to come in and rally around, what was a very horrible part of our American diplomatic history.

It`s very unfortunate that Chris Stevens was killed. You know, we`ve had a commission by Tom Pickering and others that have said, hey, here`s what we need to go and look at our missions around the world. That`s what they should focus on, and they`re not.

MELBER: Yes, I think that`s well-put. The Pickering commission, of course, led by diplomat there with experience, administrations from both parties.

Go ahead, Nick.

KRISTOF: One of the real scandals there which, of course, the committee is not going to focus on is Congress` unwillingness to fund security, which is a real issue. And if you want to make embassies safer and make future Chris Stevens safer, then what you do is allocate the money. And, you know, that is what the party has been unwilling to do.

MELBER: Uh-huh. And, Steve, just to finish out the point there you were raising on the, on the Benghazi watchdog language here -- you know, I have worked in politics. I have covered politics. So, I have some what of a high threshold for the crap and the ugliness.

I find this ghoulish. I find this gross. I find it disgusting. And I wonder -- go ahead.

CLEMONS: It`s like being a -- you know, one of the crazy futuristic movies where you are sitting, watching an audience there, watching a kind of gladiator show. I mean, it`s -- it is disgusting in the sense that you are inviting Americans to come in and look ghoulishly at a terrible unfolding conditions. There should be a look at it.

But at the time that happened, you know, when Chris Stevens was killed, there were any number of 40, 45 other missions around the world in similar precarious situations. I would argue today that many of them sit in the situation today. The Republican Party at the time, continue to defund the security dimensions of State Department needs. And the whole notion of the State Department, particularly under Hillary Clinton when they were fighting for budgetary resources to go out there, there was enormous pressure to draw down the diplomatic budget.

So, this is a very, very false, I think, and, you know, sort of ingenuine interest in Benghazi for reasons that have nothing to do with Benghazi. If they were interested in the fundamental issues, they would be looking at other issues. They would be demanding competencies in other area. They would be funding other sorts of diplomatic security activities. None of that is going on.

MELBER: Right. And so, that goes back then to the governance questioning. If there is no governing being attempted and no real legitimate governing to do, then how do you even engage this.

I want to play Chuck Todd interviewing Congressman Clyburn, a member of the Democratic leadership, on that question in how involved Democrats should be in the committee. Let`s take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK TODD, MSNBC ANCHOR: Let me ask you a quick question on Benghazi. There seems to be a split in the leadership about whether Democrat should participate in this committee or not. What say you?

REP. JIM CLYBURN (D), SOUTH CAROLINA: We should not.

TODD: You want a full boycott?

CLYBURN: I do, because I think -- we`ve had seven hearings, four in the House, two in the Senate. There`s one independent. We should not have a select committee.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Nick, what do you make of that view of some Democrats that they shouldn`t even take the spots offered on this committee?

KRISTOF: I mean, I understand the unwillingness to engage in something that seems fairly partisan that is likely to be a waste of time. On the other hand, I mean, it does seem at the end of the day, this is Congress that went to some degree, needs to defer to the majority. It may be better to have minority party present.

So, I don`t know. I mean, the whole spectacle strikes me as a disaster if you consider how many really important issues there are for Congress to be facing right now.

MELBER: And, Steve, on that point, and you worked in the Senate. It seems to me that if they have subpoena power, they`re going to be able to bring Democrats to this function with or without their desire. So, having more a straight, raw, strategic matter would make sense, rather than boycotting the committee.

CLEMONS: Well, I think everything on Benghazi is basically out there that`s important. So, I`m not worried about anything else they might or any embarrassment they try to continue to achieve. I think, as I said earlier, that I think this could backfire on the way they want to use this for fund-raising.

I`m one of those -- I understand that many members don`t want to give legitimacy to this processing committee and don`t go in. But as some one that has worked in the institution, I think it`s always important when you have the minority party represented, they have an ability to raise issues too. They have an ability to stand up, ask questions, make points, and if the American public sees on going abuse of that minority, that too will come back and, and nip at the heels of the Republican Party.

So, I would if I were running the show, endorse, five, very, very good solid Democrats to come in and basically continue to raise the profile of what the legitimate question should be. I think that can be powerful.

MELBER: That`s well-put. We showed a little bit of Elijah Cummings on the floor. He also had a very heated interaction with Darrell Issa who doesn`t back down that often, but found himself apologizing over their aggressive oversight of exaggerated scandal with the IRS.

Now, broadening out, Nick, given your work and your journalism around foreign policy, you mentioned earlier -- this is not the only thing going on. What else do you think Congress should be doing more positively in foreign policy oversight and also please give us your thoughts on the unfolding crisis in Nigeria?

KRISTOF: Well, indeed that is one thing that we could be undertaking. If you -- I mean, the reason that Boko Haram has focused on attacking girls` schools is that the way you transform a society, the way you fight extremism, the way you develop an economy is to educate the population and girls.

And when President Obama took office, he talked about starting a global girls education fund. And he essentially hasn`t talked about it ever since. I mean that was a great idea in 2008. It`s a great idea today. I wish there were more people asking him about why it hasn`t happened. Partly that`s because it is not going to get through Congress.

You know, likewise in this country, if you try to think what brings about change, then I think early childhood education. I think he`s right that, you know, that is the leverage that you have to not just put Band-Aids on problems but over time, to change the structure and create opportunity.

MELBER: A fitting and hopeful note to think about beyond all of the other drama in the House today.

Nick Kristof and Steve Clemons, thank you both for joining me tonight. I appreciate it.

KRISTOF: Thank you.

CLEMONS: Thank you, Ari.

MELBER: Absolutely.

Now, what we have next is millionaires and what they really think about income inequality and taxes. Robert Reich, former labor secretary, and Nick Hanauer join me.

And Kevin Durant, the NBA MVP saved his biggest thank you for last. He thanked his mom. Tonight, we have his mom, Wanda Durant, on the program.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

JON STEWART, COMEDIAN: I am willing to grant Governor Perry the second chance. Show us your new and improved grasp of the complexities of the issues.

GOV. RICK PERRY (R), TEXAS: I think Americans are really concerned about how am I going to take care of my family. I am really worried about the 90 million people, they`re out of work.

STEWART: Did you say 90 million? Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Oops. You are so close. You are only -- off by around 80 million. Unless -- unless of course you are including children, students, and old people, past the age of 65 as part of your out of work force. But that would be far too stupid for a man with glasses of ensmartenment.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

BOEHNER: Our members believe strongly that raising tax rates will hurt the economy.

REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MAJORITY LEADER: An obsession to raise taxes is not going to solve the problem.

BOEHNER: Raising rates will hurt the very people that we`re expecting to upgrade jobs in the country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want to tax them some more. What do you think that does to the business climate in America? How are we going to create jobs?

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO HOST: What is the moral argument for escalating tax rates? What is the morality -- where is the morality in a progressive tax system? Where is it?

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

MELBER: We have known for a long time where Republicans and conservatives and many stand on the issue of wealth inequality. But millionaires in America actually may feel differently.

According to CNBC`s first ever, specific, millionaire`s survey of 514 people, 51 percent believe that wealth inequality is actually a major problem. And of those millionaires who believe that, 64 percent, support raising taxes on the wealthy. While 63 percent support increasing the minimum wage in order to lessen inequality of wealth across our labor markets in the U.S.

Joining me now is former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, whose film "Inequality for All" is available on Netflix, iTunes and on demand, and entrepreneur and venture capitalist, Nick Hanauer.

Welcome to you both.

Robert, talk to me about the disconnect here because we hear a lot about the 1 percent, with the implication that they`re bad for these debates. This poll has a little more nuance to it.

ROBERT REICH, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: Ari, what is happening in America is very interesting. The very wealthy, including a lot of CEOs, and a lot of people on Wall Street, are beginning to understand that, unless the middle-class and the poor have more purchasing power, that they don`t have, because, so much income of and wealth are going to the top these days. Unless they have more purchasing power in the middle-class and poor, they`re not going to be customers for all of the things that American corporations have to sell.

And that means that a lot of people at the top would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy than what they have now, which is a large share of an economy barely growing at all because there`s not enough demand for the goods and services.

Nick, you have started a lot of companies. You have created a lot of wealth. And your ted talk and a lot of your advocacy has been about this sort of middle out concept. Where do you see this headed?

NICK HANAUER, VENTURE CAPITALIST: Well, you know, I think no one understands the most fundamental law of capitalism better than business owners, which is if workers don`t have any money, we business people don`t have any customers. And, you know, the reality of rising inequality is beginning to sink in, you know, across the political spectrum., and up and down, of and down the income scale.

I think that more and more -- more and more senior executives, more and more wealthy people, certainly, you know, my group of friend, in wealthy city like Seattle, are more and more coming to the fact it is self defeating for rich people to pay no taxes and poor people to keep getting poorer. As Bob says we would all be better off if most Americans earned more and we earned a little built less.

MELBER: Hmm. And, Robert, given your expertise here on the economics and the politics of having served under President Clinton, we want to point out a millionaire`s political affiliation, not unlike any one else at any income bracket has a huge influence here. And yet you see Republican millionaires I argue isolated. Republican say, only to the tune of 20 percent Republican millionaires that inequality is this problem. What you have then, Democrats, one might expect, much hyper, 86 percent.

But independent millionaires, Robert, are breaking towards the Democratic view of inequality as a problem. Not the Republican view of the status quo.

REICH: Yes. It`s the old story of reality breaking through, and the independent millionaires and even a majority of total millionaires, I mean, if you put them all of them together, a majority are saying, yes we think this is a huge, growing problem, widening inequality. Yes, we ought to be taxed more. Yes, many of them, in fact, a plurality are saying we want to raise the minimum wage.

In other words, what we have assumed about American politics that we are really rigidly divided by class in terms of some of these economic policies, is starting to break down as the reality of what widening inequality means for the economy is beginning to actually be absorbed.

MELBER: Right. You can`t really get action on these policies, as you both know, without having some sort of common language and common reality.

Nick, take a listen to President Obama recently on this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In this year of action, whenever I can act on my own to create jobs and expand opportunity for more Americans, I will. And since January, I have taken more than 20 executive actions to do just that. I acted to raise more workers wages by requiring workers on new federal contracts earn a fair wage of $10.10. And as long as Republicans in Congress refuse to act, I`ll keep working with cities, states and businesses to give more Americans a raise.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: And that`s important that I want to highlight. He`s talking working with businesses, pressure on companies, collaboration where possible.

Nick, you`re speaking to us from Seattle, where the Mayor Ed Murray has been organizing directly in collaboration with the business community. Get the minimum wage up. Tell us about that.

HANAUER: Well, I mean, you know, we have come very far on the idea of a $15 minimum wage, Ari, as you know. I think it`s been 341 days since "Bloomberg" published my piece, the capitalist case for a $15 minimum wage, which the folks at "Forbes" characterized as near insane. And yet, 140 days later, the citizens in SeaTac voted in a $15 minimum wage and 340 days later, we`re in the process of implementing one here in Seattle.

And I think an extraordinary thing happened, which was a bilateral negotiation between labor and community leaders and businesses to phase in a very, very sound compromise to get workers to $15 over -- over, you know, four to seven years. And I think it is a very exciting development both in Seattle but also for the country.

MELBER: And, Robert, when you look at your, as I mention, your former boss, President Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, they have obviously been -- I would arguer at least reframing some of the emphasis around their economic record. Give us your insights on that. And whether for you it`s squared with your experience in the cabinet?

REICH: Well, undoubtedly, the economic record under Bill Clinton was sterling and we did see a reduction in inequality because the economy grew so fast, and that was the responsibility and the result of policies that came out of Bill Clinton`s administration. I was very proud to be part of the administration.

It is true though that right now -- given how much inequality we have, given the stagnation and even the decline of the median wage and so many Americans working harder than ever, and not getting ahead, there is more political capital to be had by sounding more populist than there was in the 1990s. So, I think we are going to see not just Hillary Clinton, but all candidates, including a lot of Republican candidates sounding as if they really are, and maybe genuinely are, more concerned about what`s happening in this country.

Again, the business class, the Wall Streeters -- don`t over-exaggerate what I`m saying -- they still want wages to be low. They still like fat corporate profits. They`re not going to -- they haven`t got the religion yet. But there is at least the beginning of a change in corporate board rooms. And even on Wall Street about, the issue, widening inequality.

MELBER: Yes, that`s well put. I think that goes to some of the gap here on the big issues, particularly the treatment of investment income. Something you have talked about. A lot more, lot more room to maneuver for these -- some of these millionaires.

Robert Reich, Nick Hanauer, thank you both for joining me tonight.

HANAUER: Great. Thank you for having us.

MELBER: And coming up, the most valuable mom of the year. NBA player Kevin Durant`s mom is here. She`s going to join me for a good conversation.

And, House Republicans convene top insurance executives at a hearing. Now watch what happened when Republicans ran their dark fantasies about the ACA by people who actually work in that field.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: We are excited about this one.

In the spotlight tonight. The real MVP, last night, Oklahoma City Thunder star Kevin Durant was presented with his first NBA MVP trophy in front of thousand of screaming fans at his home arena. You can see him there. The biggest fan in the crowd last night was certainly Durant`s mother, Wanda Pratt, known to the thunder family as Mama Durant. For most of us, we were first introduced to Mama Durant on Tuesday when her son delivered an emotional, amazing tribute to her while accepting that MVP award.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN DURANT, NBA PLAYER 2013-2014 MVP: You wake me up in the middle of the night in the summer times. Making me run up the hill. Making me do pushups. Scream act me from the side line of my games at eight or 9-years-old. We weren`t supposed to be here. You made us believe. You kept us off the street. You put clothes on our backs. Food on the table. When you didn`t eat, you made sure we ate. You want to sleep hungry. You sacrificed for us. You are the real MVP.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Wanda Pratt joins me now. How did it feel when he was saying all that to you?

WANDA PRATT, KEVIN DURANT`S MOTHER: I was really overwhelmed by it all. Every time I have heard it, it just, it brings tears to my eyes. So, I am, I was just overwhelmed.

MELBER: The stories he told there, the adversity. How did you instill in him these values that he, he so clearly exhibited in this speech and in his life.

PRATT: Well, I tried to be the example before them, both my sons. To always work hard, to never quit, to be dedicated to something, to commit just off to something. And I showed them that because I had done those things towards them. And I would not allow them to quit anything that they had started. No matter how hard it has gotten. They had to continue to the end. And, so I think, those, are the values that you all see in Kevin today.

MELBER: Yes. And I was reading some of the other things that you have said about all of this. And I noticed you talked how he was young in his teenage years. He really wasn`t seeing a lot of friend or being able to goof off because he was working so hard at his game. And that was a choice. And that also was important for his development as he spoke in the speech. Because he was growing up in Prince George County, an area that had all kind of problems. So let`s take a listen to that part of the speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DURANT: I come from a small county outside of Washington, D.C. called PG county. Me, my mom, my brother, we moved so many different places growing up. And it felt like a box. It felt like there was no getting out. My dream was to become a Rec league coach. That`s what I wanted to do. I wanted to stay home and help the kids out and be a coach.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Had you heard him say that before, it felt like a box? And how did you create an environment where he could have pride while also trying to excel and get beyond that environment?

PRATT: Well, I had grown up in the same area. And I knew that I didn`t want my sons to be caught up into the things that a lot of the kids had been caught up into. And so, I was, really involved in their lives. I mean, some would consider me a hovering mother. But I felt it necessary for me to know who their friends were. To know the parents of their friend to know. The environment in which they were going to be in which was the activities center.

And so I made myself well known in their lives. And I think that`s what really helped them to become, and particularly, Kevin, the person that you all see. And so I knew the area. I knew what was going on there. I knew that the things were happening. I didn`t want that for them.

MELBER: And we are talking PG County. Let me put up on the screen here. A billboard about your son that was just erected there. It read from, Seat Pleasant, Maryland, to NBA MVP. How does that feel? That community pride?

PRATT: Oh, wow. I can`t wait to see it. Hopefully it is going to be up when I get back home. And I just can`t wait to see it. But I`m really excited and I`m grateful that they acknowledged Kevin also. It was really a great place. It is home for us even though there were rough times there. but it is still a great place. And so, I`m grateful for them.

MELBER: Let me ask you me more question, you know, in the news business, not really a fair question, but curious about your answer. What do you say to people who look at what you have been able to do and what he has been able to do and they don`t think they can make it that way? What do you say to them?

PRATT: Well, they just have to look at us and say that they can. I mean, we are the prime example. We start from really humble beginnings. And my son has risen to the place of worldwide notoriety. Didn`t quite successful into something positive. And so, they have to look at us and see that they can. There is no other option. They have to say that they can.

MELBER: Wanda Pratt. Thank you for joining me. And if I can say so, have a very, wonderful mother`s day.

PRATT: Thanks, Ari, you enjoy the rest of your weekend.

MELBER: Thank you.

Coming up a man who is trying a new tactic to ensure that everyone in North Carolina can get married including some friend of the show, Lenny and Pearl.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: Another twist in the fight over the L.A. Clippers. The team could stay in the family. Shelley Sterling, estranged wife of Donald Sterling is now arguing that she can legally maintain ownership of the NBA team. There are reports that she has equal ownership of the L.A. Clippers and under the terms of the family trust. The NBA of course issued a rare lifetime ban on Donald Sterling and a fine for those racist remarks he made to his girlfriend that were leaked. The league`s 29 other owners may vote to force him to sell the entire team. Shelley Sterling may face scrutiny over her past comments if the NBA considers her request to hold on to the L.A. Clippers.

Now, up next, a local North Carolina elected official takes marriage equality into his own hands. How he is starting a movement to force North Carolina to change its ways.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We live in North Carolina. And they have made it impossible for us to be treated as married people. And that we don`t have the time to wait for the state to evolve they need to do it now. Neither of us have any doubt it will happen. But this question is will it happen in time for us?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: If Mark Chilton has his way, marriage licenses for same-sex couples will happen in time for Lennie and Pearl that you saw there from our interview. Chilton, a real estate attorney and former mayor in Carrboro, North Carolina campaigned on the promise that he will defy state law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if he is elected as register of deeds in Orange County, North Carolina.

On Tuesday night, Chilton won a three-way Democratic primaries garnering 42 percent of the vote, beating the incumbent in what is a heavily Democratic district. Now, no Republican filed to run for office. So Chilton will like become Orange County`s next register of deeds and only the second partisan in a southern state to accept a marriage application.

Joining me now is Mark Chilton. How are you?

MARK CHILTON, REGISTER OF DEEDS CANDIDATE: Great. Thank you for having me on.

MELBER: You bet. What are you trying to do here?

CHILTON: Well, I am trying to be the register of deed of Orange County, North Carolina, mostly. But I am a legal scholar as well as the a real estate attorney. And after reading all of the cases that are involved with, same-sex marriage, that have come down from the federal courts, it seems very clear to me that North Carolina`s state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage is, definitely contrary to the 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution.

MELBER: Well, let`s look at that amendment so we are all on the same page. It says marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the state. This section is not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party nor is this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuance into such contracts.

What do you say to folks who look at that and say that as long as that is the law it is not up to you to decide to whether it is unconstitutional. That is only for the courts in your state.

CHILTON: Well, first of all, the North Carolina state constitution lays out that my oath of office as a register of deeds will be number one responsibility to uphold the United States constitution. And number two to uphold the North Carolina constitution to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the federal constitution.

So my obligation as an elected official is first and foremost, to call, to support the, the maintain the United States constitution. So that`s what I intend to do. And I think it is very clear. I mean, why would my oath of office call for me to support and maintain the constitution of the United States if I don`t have the authority to interpret the constitution and apply it, you know, in a logical and reasonable manner that is based on existing case law?

MELBER: I hear you on that. And what would you do if you end up in a situation where you were under some sort of order to desist. You said you want to both hold the job, you also want to approach it this way. Do you end up in that kind of conflict? Are you prepared to quit or resign over the issue?

CHILTON: No, I am going to obey any, you know, competent court order that may be issued in connection with this. As an attorney, I`m oblige to do that as well as an elected official. But you know, honestly, I don`t know that any such order is necessarily going to be forthcoming. You know, there are other states where this has happened. And where this situation simply sits that one county in Pennsylvania is issuing same-sex marriage licenses the rest are not. Couple are in New Mexico and the rest are not.

MELBER: Yes. I mean, politically, that makes this really interesting and really for the folks fighting for these rights constructive. And you look at North Carolina, which we mentioned people think of it as southern and potentially conservative state. Although, the electoral politics there have definitely shifted. President Obama was able to summon a coalition there.

But specific to this issue. Let me put up for our viewers here, 46 percent of North Carolinians now say they do support same-sex marriage according to a recent poll, an April poll, 43 percent oppose. That its split, but that seems to be going in the right direction for you.

CHILTON: You know it really doesn`t matter though. Because the fact is that, what the Supreme Court has said is that the purpose, sole purpose of a law is to denigrate homosexuals, if that is the only thing you have got, then, not a valid exercise of lawful authority. And it really doesn`t matter whether that is popular fact or not. It happens to be, a popular fact in, my home county of Orange County, North Carolina.

MELBER: Yes, you mention that. And Justice Kennedy has written about in the earlier Colorado case, as well as in the recent case. Do you think there are any states that have the kind of rules that don`t require stigma against gays that are not anti-gay in their purpose.

CHILTON: I think to answer that question. You got to look at legislative history behind each one. I can well imagine what the legislative history looks like behind the various amendments. But I only really looked in detail at North Carolina`s so-called amendment 1. And, you know, from that it is very clear the legislator whose drafted it had no other purpose than to, in mind, than to put down, gays and lesbians.

MELBER: You know, Mark, you sound like a lawyer in a good way by which way you sound serious, detail oriented, and taking some of the oaths seriously. So, it is interesting to talk to you.

Mark Chilton. Thanks for your time tonight.

CHILTON: Thanks for having me on.

MELBER: And coming up, House Republicans fail to get insurance executives to say what Republicans really hope they might say about the ACA.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: That`s why I advised her against taking leadership position at HHS. After all who would recommend their friend take over as captain of the titanic after it hit the iceberg. Obviously, she ignored my advice and accepted the nomination any way continuing her pattern of public service.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That there is what passes for a bipartisan compliment these days. Senator John McCain today introducing Sylvia Burwell for confirmation hearing to be secretary of health and human services. Burwell had strong Republican support when she took over President Obama`s budget office. And today was no different.

"The Washington Post" noted Republican senators were cordial which disappointed some people spoiling for an Obamacare fight. The conservative "Washington Times" deemed the hearing a quote "snooze fest." It was another story, however in the House where an ACA hearing started, with sour grapes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. FRED LIPTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: While the administration toasts to the law`s success with Hollywood allies declaring this conversation over. We will continue our pursuit for facts for the American people so that we can finally have a full accurate picture of this health care law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: And the most important hearing on Obamacare this week featured another instance where Republican attacks could not survive sustained contact with the facts. You may have heard the complaint that even though more people are getting health care now, millions might not be paying their premiums.

Now that would be an epidemic if it were an epidemic. But when Republicans raise that question with insurance executives this week, the people in the know said the majority of ACA enrollees are paying up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL WINGLE, AETNA: It had 600,000 members who enrolled and roughly 500,000 members who paid. For those who reached their payment due date, the payment rate though dynamic has been a low to meet the 80 percent range.

DARREN ROGERS, HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION: As you can see, January through April looked fairly consistent and ranged from 83 to 93 percent. The payment rates for May are currently less because payments are still coming and being posted.

DENNIS MATHEIS, WELLPOINT: We are seeing strong membership growth. And large percentages of newly enrolled customers are successfully paying their premiums by the due date.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Joining me is Jonathan Cohn of the "New Republic" who wrote about today`s and yesterday`s hearing.

JONATHAN COHN, THE NEW REPUBLIC: They are very good numbers. Remember, the raw number of signups, the number of people who actually went through the process and picked insurance plans is over eight million. So, if, you know, 80 to 85 to 95 percent of them are actually paying their premiums, that means, we are looking at somewhere like seven, six and a half, seven million people who are getting actual insurance to the exchanges which by the way, is exactly and almost on the nose what the congressional budget office predicted.

And you know that should, you know, build, give us some confidence that hey, you know, this law is, you know, at least in this respect is working the way it was projected to work.

MELBER: Yes. This law is the law. This law is working. This law is expanding private markets at a basic level. And you know, Jan Schakowsky used some of her time to go directly at an attack on the score, on these markets. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Republicans also questioned whether the private health insurance, whether private health insurance would even exist in 2014. In 2010, Senator Coburn said quote "there will be no insurance industry left in three years." And that quote "private health insurance will be dead in three years" unquote. I should note nearly four years have passed since that statement was made. Is the private health industry dead?

MELBER: It is borderline, farcical and yet there is a good reason it is farcical. She is actually taking that Republican attack, seriously. Right? It is only a joke, to actually take something that, that, Mr. Coburn said and ask whether it is the case.

COHN: Well, and it is really -- it`s emblematic of the entire debate about Obamacare. I mean, it has been, you know it was going to cause death panels. It is socialism. It is going to destroy the private health industry. All of these apocalyptic predictions. And none of them have come true.

Look, the law is, it is a mix of good and bad. It certainly has the its flaws. But, you know all of the available signs at this point. It is actually working reasonably well. And we can say, I think with absolute confidence that, predictions like those were always absurd. And, you know, this just proves it.

MELBER: Yes. And you know, the president went down and did all this jokes at the correspondents` dinner last weekend. He dealt a lot about health care.gov. Always good, you know, in those environment as a politician to be able to laugh at yourself. But if I can politically overanalyze humor, and we do that sometimes in the news. I also thought that it reflect it a certain confidence or even a swagger. We are past that. You weren`t joking about healthcare.gov back when it was actually getting in the way of people getting coverage. And that goes to something else which is whether this new, you know, nominee here, Sylvia Burwell, not only have Republican support but being seen as a real competent overseer, what can you tell us about her?

COHN: Well, she is a competent overseer. And she does have bipartisan respect. I think the reception she got though is really a sign of how the politics of Obamacare are changing. I mean, like you said, you know, we wouldn`t, you know, President Obama wouldn`t be joking about it if there were disaster. And you can rest assured that if the Republicans thought there was real political gain in going after her today they would have.

But you know, at some point, you know, reality does interfere. Reality comes up. And it has become hard to -- I know you had the tape of McCain calling it the titanic. But nobody believes it is the titanic anymore. You know, the reality interfered with the Republican talking points.

MELBER: Yes, I know it has been said that reality has the well known liberal bias. That was a Colbert line. Apparently, the health care reality must have an Obamacare bias. But as you say, the numbers bear that out. And I think you are right when you think how many times the Republicans have sought to get ACA conversation in the back door. Here they have a nominee that they could try to crucify over. They are not doing that. It is an interesting point.

Jon Cohn, thanks for your perspective. You get the "Last Word" tonight.

COHN: Thank you. And thanks for having me on.

MELBER: You got it, man.

I`m Ari Melber, in for Lawrence O`Donnell. And Chris Hayes is up next.

END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2014 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>